Incomplete cooperation and co-benefits: deepening climate cooperation with a proliferation of small agreements
- 658 Downloads
Case study and model results lend some optimism for the potential of small coalitions with partially excludable public goods to substantially deepen international cooperation on energy and climate issues. Drawing motivation from other issue areas in international relations ranging from nuclear non-proliferation, transboundary air pollution and liberalized trade, we use an evolutionary-game-theoretic model to analyze regimes that yield domestic incentives to contribute to public goods provision (co-benefits). Co-benefits may be limited, but can create a nucleus for formation of coalitions that grow while deepening provision of global public goods. The Climate and Clean Air Coalition (CCAC) is a prime example of an agreement that employs partially excludable club benefits to deepen cooperation on non-CO2 greenhouse gases. Our game-theoretic results support two important insights for the building blocks approach to addressing climate change: sustained cooperation in club agreements is possible even when public goods are not entirely excludable and some members of the population free-ride; and second, cooperation in small club configurations yields larger non-excludable public goods benefits than cooperation in more inclusive forums. This paper lends positive support that a proliferation of small agreements under a building blocks approach at the UNFCCC may be more effective (not just more likely) for deepening climate change cooperation than a fully inclusive approach.
KeywordsPublic Good Coalition Member Global Public Good Climate Governance Club Good
The authors thank seminar participants at Columbia University, Princeton University, and Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei for valuable comments. Bob Keohane, Michael Oppenheimer, Rob Socolow, Joanne Scott, and Christina Davis provided insightful feedback. P.M.H. and S.A.L. benefited from the support of the Global Collaborative Networks Fund at Princeton University. V.V.V. and J.M.P. are grateful to the Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at Princeton for the support during their visitation. This research was supported by the Walbridge Fund in the Princeton Environment Institute at Princeton University, by an FQEB grant (FQEB #RFP-12-14) from the John Templeton Foundation and NSF support through grants EF-1137894 and GEO-1211972, by FCT-Portugal through grants SFRH/BD/86465/2012, PTDC/MAT/122897/2010, and by Portuguese funds (PIDDAC) - PEst-OE/BIA/UI4050/2014, and Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian through the “Stimulus to Research” program for young researchers.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
P.M.H. and J.M.P. designed the project; P.M.H. conducted the case study analysis; J.M.P., V.V.V., P.M.H., and S.A.L. designed and analyzed the model; P.M.H. and V.V.V. wrote the paper; All authors contributed intellectual content and commented on the manuscript.
- Anthony I, Ahlstrom C, Fedchenko V (2007) Reforming nuclear export controls: the future of the nuclear suppliers group. Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. SIPRI Research Report No. 22Google Scholar
- Axelrod R (1984) The evolution of cooperation. Basic Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Barrett S (2004) Environment and statecraft: the strategy of environmental treaty-making. Oxford University Press, USAGoogle Scholar
- Cole DH (2011) From global to polycentric climate governance. Climate Law 2(3):395–413Google Scholar
- Du Bois WEB (2007) The suppression of the African slave-trade to the United States of America, 1638–1870. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
- Dubash NK, Raghunandan D, Sant G, Sreenivas A (2013) Indian climate change policy. Econ Polit Wkly 48. Available at: http://www.epw.in/system/files/pdf/2013_48/22/Indian_Climate_Change_Policy.pdf
- Fogel RW (ed) (1989) Without consent or contract: the rise and fall of American slavery. WW Norton & Company Inc, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Frankel J (2007) Formulas for quantitative emission targets. In: Aldy JE, Stavins RN (eds) Architectures for agreement: addressing global climate change in the post-Kyoto world. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Hardin R (1982) Collective action. Resources for the future, BaltimoreGoogle Scholar
- Keck ME, Sikkink K (1998) Activists beyond borders: advocacy networks in international politics, vol 35. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NYGoogle Scholar
- Keohane RO (1984) After hegemony: cooperation and discord in the world political economy. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
- Morris S, Shin HS (2002) Social value of public information. Am Econ Rev 92(5):1521–1534Google Scholar
- Olson M (1965) The logic of collective action: public goods and the theory of groups. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
- Prakash A, Potoski M (2007) Collective action through voluntary environmental programs: a club theory perspective. Policy Stud J 35(4):773–792Google Scholar
- Rehm JB (1968) Developments in the law and institutions of international economic relations: the Kennedy Round of trade negotiations. Am J Int Law 62:403–434Google Scholar
- Schelling TC (1978) Micromotives and macrobehavior. Norton, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Skjærseth JB (2008) The making and implementation of North Sea commitments: the politics of environmental participation. In Victor DG, Raustiala K, Skolnikoff EB (Eds). (1998). The implementation and effectiveness of international environmental commitments: theory and practice. MIT PressGoogle Scholar
- Strulak T (1993) The nuclear suppliers group. Nonproliferation Review 1(1):2–10Google Scholar
- U.S. Conference of Mayors (2009) 1000th Mayor – Mesa, AZ mayor Scott Smith signs the U.S. conference of mayors climate protection agreement [Press release]. Retrieved from http://www.usmayors.org/pressreleases/uploads/1000signatory.pdf
- U.S. House of Representatives (2004). Should China join the nuclear suppliers group? Hearing before the committee on international relations. 108th Congress 2.Google Scholar
- Winham GR (1986) International trade and the Tokyo Round negotiation. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar